Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yes, I think this is the crux of the issue, and I believe it's what Newtonian is saying.  Who cares if Mr. Almeida is able to prove he has justifiable need.

That doesn't change anything for the rest of us.  What we need is for the courts to rule that self defense is enough reason for a CCW permit,

as provided in the Second Amendment:  The right to BEAR arms.

 

Agreed. If Mr. Almedia wins his case, it may open the door for CCW's for a narrowly defined class: landlords who (a) have been physically threatened, and (b) must collect rent in-person at dangerous areas.

 

How does this help the 99.99% of the rest of us who want to protect themselves, but are not of the above narrowly defined class?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. If Mr. Almedia wins his case, it may open the door for CCW's for a narrowly defined class: landlords who (a) have been physically threatened, and (b) must collect rent in-person at dangerous areas.

Even this is a fallacy. It will open no doors because what happens to Almeida doesn't automatically apply to Jones or Smith. They, and everyone after them, will need to shell out their own $$$ to fight their own individual battles. 2AF is living in a fantasy world if they believe this will open or chip away at anything. What did the last 10, 20, 30 permits to ordinary citizens open up???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has any group every requested how many current CCW holders in NJ ARE NOT due to employment? Don't need names, addresses, or any personal information. Just how many current CCW holders are issued to non LE / security guards / arrmored truck workers? Would help to show how misleading the "we approve 90% of applicants" number is.

 

Sure, you approve 90% but 87.5% of those approvals were REQUIRED for employment purposes. I wonder what the percentage of NJ CCW holders is that received one for nonemployment purposes. I would be surprised if it were over 5%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has any group every requested how many current CCW holders in NJ ARE NOT due to employment? Don't need names, addresses, or any personal information. Just how many current CCW holders are issued to non LE / security guards / arrmored truck workers? Would help to show how misleading the "we approve 90% of applicants" number is.

 

Sure, you approve 90% but 87.5% of those approvals were REQUIRED for employment purposes. I wonder what the percentage of NJ CCW holders is that received one for nonemployment purposes. I would be surprised if it were over 5%.

the rest are probably democratic politicians..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attached to the right bill... yes.

 

Heard Evan Nappen say that they would likely attach it to an appropriations bill.

 

 

 I wonder what the percentage of NJ CCW holders is that received one for nonemployment purposes. I would be surprised if it were over 5%.

 

I would bet that the percentage is a lot closer to zero than to 5%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evan Nappen is underestimating the fecklessness of the Pubs in congress. I swear, those guys surrender faster and more often than the French.

 

Pres. Obama would never sign it, regardless. He would "shut down the government" , ie the national parks and monuments, stop the welfare and social security checks just like last time.

 

Baby got no shoes! Fixed income! My family vacation was spoiled!

Those phone lines to crying Bohner and Toby turtle McConnell will melt.

 

Everybody will blame the Pubs. Win-win. To play that game require balls. The Pubs won't do it again.

 

National reciprocity is another hope springs eternal dealios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no faith in the case doing anything for anyone else other than the plaintiff.  The case is too narrowly defined for his needs.  In regards to chipping away at NJ gun control polices, the vote is the only thing that will change this but that is also not realistic.  It's not realistic because NJ is a welfare state, those in need will vote the way they need to vote to make sure they can get everything they want for free.  If you want sensible gun rights, move (don't give me that bullshit that I have a family and it's not easy and blah blah blah, you have a choice: Gun rights:No gun rights, you only get to choose one).  Otherwise N.J. is heading for more restrictive gun control policies once Christie is gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gottlieb (SAF) has challenged a lot of bad laws and had a lot of them changed.  The challenges often start out with stupid little cases that seem insignificant that take years to get through the courts.  He's good at strategy and has had a lot of success doing this.

 

In my life, I've noticed that winners tend to continue to win and Gottlieb is one of those winners.  I'm cautiously optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal here seems NOT to be proving that Almeida should get a permit because he meets J.N.

At this point, both his CLEO and the Superior Ct. have said he doesn't.

 

If SAF is backing this, they're probably hopeful that this denial is so patently egregious that it'll demonstrate to a higher court that discretionary J.N. is obviously unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

long read.......not mine........

 

If I asked you if you had rights, what would you say?  Chances are you would say “yes”.

And if I asked you what rights you had, what would you say?  The popular answers usually are the right to free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right against unreasonable search and seizure…

But what if I asked you “What is a right?”

Now that is a question that we don’t usually think about.  We usually stop at saying that we have them but don’t go into what a right really is.  But when it comes to people who do want to take your rights away, well, I can assure you, they have thought about it, and you should too.

When we say that we have a right, what we really should be doing is expressing that statement in its longer form.  What we should say is “We have a right to be left alone”.

When the government and the individual agree about something, well then there isn’t a problem, everyone is happy.  Where rights come into play is when the government and the individual disagree; where the government wants one thing, and the individual says “No thanks”.  Respecting individual rights is the hallmark of a free republic.

A right is something that you as an individual own.  A privilege, on the other hand, is something that another entity owns who then grants you the ability to do something.   A privilege definitely can be taken away if it is owned by someone other than you because they own it and you don’t.

What if someone wanted to get rid of your rights?  How would they do that?

One way is by physical force.  Someone kicking down your door and killing you would take away your right to live.  But that is a kind of obvious way to do it.

A more subtle way would be to get you to treat your rights as privileges.

Let me give you an example.  Since the right to keep and bear arms has been in the news a lot lately, let’s use that as an example, but we could use another right like freedom of speech just as easily.

One of the suggested solutions put forth as a way to stop mass shootings has been to try and limit the capacity of magazines.  Frequently, gun control proponents will ask the question to an individual “Why do you need a magazine larger than 10 rounds?  Isn’t that a reasonable restriction?”

At this point, someone who supports the right to keep and bear arms is faced with a choice.  Do they justify why they need the magazine of a particular size?  Do they say something else?

What happens if you agree that you don’t need a particular size of a magazine?  You’ll hear this a lot if you listen to some gun owners who call in to radio shows or even in normal day to day discussion who will agree with the idea of a magazine capacity limit as not being a problem.  You still have your right to keep and bear arms, don’t you?

Nope.  It’s essentially gone at that point as you have just consented to letting that other party have free reign to infringe upon your right.   Whenever you agree to an arbitrary limit set by someone else or some other entity, you have now set a precedent and included them in who gets to determine what you own.

When someone makes the statement that you don’t need something and it is a “reasonable” restriction on why you shouldn’t have it, what they are really doing is asking you to accept their false premise that your right is a privilege, and to allow yourself to be subjected to whatever arbitrary limit they or some other party may want. Their argument gets you to consent to get rid of something you already own, that being one of your rights.

If you accept their false premise, then tomorrow, when they decide their arbitrary 10 round limit is too high and insist on 9, or, an 8, or a 7 round magazine limit (which is exactly what happened in New York) you can’t argue with them since philosophically their arbitrary argument for a 10 round magazine is the same as for a 7.

Here is the kicker: They essentially have no argument; they just win by default because when you consent to an arbitrary limit, you lose.

Even worse, they will sell you on the virtue of “compromise”, “let’s meet in the middle ground” they frequently will say.  But when you compromise on your rights, you don’t get to keep a percentage of your rights.  Your rights are binary. You either have them, or you don’t.  You either make the decisions yourself, or you yield them and they make them for you.

When someone tries asks you to compromise on your rights, you are coming to the table with total ownership of something (namely whatever right you are talking about) and they come to the table with nothing.  A compromise implies something from one party and something from the other.  Well, when there is total ownership on one side and nothing on the other, if you compromise the only possible outcome is a loss for you and a win for them.

The correct answer is that need has absolutely nothing to do with it.  You have the right to be left alone when it comes to keeping and bearing of arms.  You have the right to say no.  If someone wants to strip you of your rights, then that is where due process comes in where they make an allegation and you get to challenge their claim.

The framers of the second amendment understood the concept of rights.  Let’s take a look at the second amendment:

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Notice that there is no reference to a “privilege” or “need”, but there is a specific reference to a “right”.  Implied in the wording is how the already existing right owned by the people shall not be infringed.

Here is the scary part of all this.  If a right has been turned into a privilege, the owner can pull the privilege at their discretion.  What happens when the privilege is revoked?  Well, if the owner of the privilege is the state, that means that if you want to do something that you in fact have the right to do but the state says no, then you now have committed a crime.

I want you to remember this statement:

First it is a right, then it is a privilege, then it is a crime.

Always make it a point to protect your rights, because once they are privileges, they are gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats great write up 1LtCAP.   Unfortunately, the system ( to varying degrees in various states ) is setup such a way to "cost" the individual who exercises the said right. And rights not exercised turn into privileges, first in public opinion, then on paper as law.   So the question always ends up being "Are you willing to pay the cost to exercise the right".  Cost varies anywhere from an inconvenience to arrest, financial costs, losing jobs, character assassination, spoiled reputation, harassment, dragging through court systems, divorce, separated families.   And we have living examples of each of these in recent past. 

 

How many times have we not heard about "transportation" suggestions to avoid getting in "trouble"  "just in case" or "I dont want to be test case...".  How many here will exercise existing NJ 2A rights (or whats left of them) to the letter and carry an unloaded, open AR15 hanging outside a window ?   If one gets arrested for exercising it, I bet many here will immediately comment to the effect of "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes". So in essence, if you exercise the existing right, you will be playing stupid games.

 

In essence, MOST are not willing to pay cost of exercising the right. Even MORE will quickly jump the ship than supporting a guy who was arrested, even at slightest hint of character assassination.

 

NH has been the ONLY case where (as far as I have seen) SOME people went to great lengths of exercising their rights - Live Free Or Die. Lot of activism there (or may be they are good at advertising on youtube).

 

And then there is "First they come for....".  Forget the general population, we have folks on these very forum who advise to keep and exercise the anti 2A laws, because they "may" help nab a bad guy and make LEO job easier.  With all due respect, as long as legal and political system can convince majority that its good to have unconstitutional laws that may be used to nab drug dealers, child molesters, Muslim terrorists etc, we will not have our rights back, in true sense.

 

I have great respect for people like Almeida. Not because they are fighting A 2A cause. More so because, they are putting their life, job, reputation, time, family out there, and fighting the system, even if only for narrow scenarios that impact them.  How many of us can really say we did it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did they do?

Exercise, get arrested, sue and come back for more time and again in exercising rights - video taping cops (legally), exercising existing 2A rights including open carry etc. Free State Project. Young folks running for office and highlight specific rights etc.

 

May be they are doing great job marketing it. Once in a while you hear things from other states too, like the Sheriff / Chiefs giving middle finger to Fed anti-2A laws etc. Or the range owners barring local LEO agencies from coming over etc.

 

You know, the stuff that one will only dream and talk about in NJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is a very good read, thanks 1LtCAP!

 

Thats great write up 1LtCAP.   Unfortunately, the system ( to varying degrees in various states ) is setup such a way to "cost" the individual who exercises the said right. And rights not exercised turn into privileges, first in public opinion, then on paper as law.   So the question always ends up being "Are you willing to pay the cost to exercise the right".  Cost varies anywhere from an inconvenience to arrest, financial costs, losing jobs, character assassination, spoiled reputation, harassment, dragging through court systems, divorce, separated families.   And we have living examples of each of these in recent past. 

 

How many times have we not heard about "transportation" suggestions to avoid getting in "trouble"  "just in case" or "I dont want to be test case...".  How many here will exercise existing NJ 2A rights (or whats left of them) to the letter and carry an unloaded, open AR15 hanging outside a window ?   If one gets arrested for exercising it, I bet many here will immediately comment to the effect of "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes". So in essence, if you exercise the existing right, you will be playing stupid games.

 

In essence, MOST are not willing to pay cost of exercising the right. Even MORE will quickly jump the ship than supporting a guy who was arrested, even at slightest hint of character assassination.

 

NH has been the ONLY case where (as far as I have seen) SOME people went to great lengths of exercising their rights - Live Free Or Die. Lot of activism there (or may be they are good at advertising on youtube).

 

And then there is "First they come for....".  Forget the general population, we have folks on these very forum who advise to keep and exercise the anti 2A laws, because they "may" help nab a bad guy and make LEO job easier.  With all due respect, as long as legal and political system can convince majority that its good to have unconstitutional laws that may be used to nab drug dealers, child molesters, Muslim terrorists etc, we will not have our rights back, in true sense.

 

I have great respect for people like Almeida. Not because they are fighting A 2A cause. More so because, they are putting their life, job, reputation, time, family out there, and fighting the system, even if only for narrow scenarios that impact them.  How many of us can really say we did it ?

like i said, it wasn't mine....it's from here   http://realityalwayswins.com/.

 

 my point was though, that we've essentially already lost our rights. they were given away/taken away back in what year? did they institute the justifiable need? and when did even just transporting become so egregious? those rights are already gone, through no fault of ours, but rather our predecessors.  otherwise we'd not even be having half of these discussions.

 even if we have to pay to exercise a right(like the fpid, or p2p), that makes it not a right, but rather a privilege. if it was still a right, we'd be able to walk into bobs little sport shop, or any other sporting shop, and simply purchase our firearm.

 

 try this......go outside your normal circle of friends. work firearms into the conversation. then ask the person(s) you're talking to if owning/carrying a gun is a right or privilege?  i bet most people you ask in nj will say privilege.

 

 essentially, we're fighting to get our rights back. that's why i added the underlining on the last couple lines of that quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One never loses a right, specially the natural right that always existed.   Natural rights are not given, nor they can be taken away. What others think doesnt matter.

People who think they can take away the right will pass laws that exponentially increases the "cost" of exercising that right.  In that sense, there is always a fight to exercise our rights. Without that fight, life is not interesting.  The fight is not limited to NJ or firearms or last 60 years, its been there throughout the History. People paid ultimate price in exercise and defense of their rights.

 

In the grand scheme of things, there will never be a time when people will leave you alone with your rights. Every generation will have to continue the fight the best way possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal here seems NOT to be proving that Almeida should get a permit because he meets J.N.

At this point, both his CLEO and the Superior Ct. have said he doesn't.

 

If SAF is backing this, they're probably hopeful that this denial is so patently egregious that it'll demonstrate to a higher court that discretionary J.N. is obviously unconstitutional.

^^^^^THIS!!!

 

And FWIW, I can't believe all of the negativity here on the Forum (Not you illy).  "I won't support with one more dime" is NOT helping to restore our rights.  

 

You Keyboard Commandos are all full of HOT AIR.  You guys have to think BIG PICTURE, like the bold typed line above.  CCW in NJ will be a legal battle, fought in the Courts by Patriots such as Albert.  His struggle IS our struggle collectively.  His organizational efforts to get a mass sign-up for CCW is underway.  He is consulting several Lawyers to get the best angle before the launch of effort that most everybody here wants to see happen, but is too scared to be a part of....

 

Threads such as this one are blatantly stupid and will further chink what little armor we have.  

 

Certain NJ factions (Lawyers) make a ton of money with things just as they are, so they aren't to be held-up on a pedestal for guidance in these matters since their bottom line depends upon the status-quo!

 

So the real question is who is willing to be a part of history and who is flappin' their gums on the sidelines!???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So the real question is who is willing to be a part of history and who is flappin' their gums on the sidelines!???

I have friends down here that own, and have carry permits for free states. They claim to want to have the same rights in NJ as other states. But when they are afraid of their own state and tell me that something I have is illegal when it isn't, I tell them that I will gladly stand up and fight for OUR right to own what we want when the man comes knocking. We can't be afraid of our own shadows. We have to stand up and tell them, with no uncertainty, that we will not be denied our NATURAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms. We have to draw the line somewhere in this state and start fighting back. I'm prepared to do what ever it takes to get this state in line with other free states. But who else can say the same? How many brothers do we really have? How many people are willing to stand up with us and shout "we draw the line here, no further!"

 

Everyone claims that they are ready to roar like lions for freedom, but bleat like sheep when they find they might have to explain one denial.

 

That's why when we get an organized effort to actually happen with applications I'll be the first one in my town to apply. It's time we fight back, it's time we take back what's ours.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^THIS!!!

 

And FWIW, I can't believe all of the negativity here on the Forum (Not you illy).  "I won't support with one more dime" is NOT helping to restore our rights.  

 

You Keyboard Commandos are all full of HOT AIR.  You guys have to think BIG PICTURE, like the bold typed line above.  CCW in NJ will be a legal battle, fought in the Courts by Patriots such as Albert.  His struggle IS our struggle collectively.  His organizational efforts to get a mass sign-up for CCW is underway.  He is consulting several Lawyers to get the best angle before the launch of effort that most everybody here wants to see happen, but is too scared to be a part of....

 

Threads such as this one are blatantly stupid and will further chink what little armor we have.  

 

Certain NJ factions (Lawyers) make a ton of money with things just as they are, so they aren't to be held-up on a pedestal for guidance in these matters since their bottom line depends upon the status-quo!

 

So the real question is who is willing to be a part of history and who is flappin' their gums on the sidelines!???

as soon as i see a couple thousand people actually submitting their applications for ccw, i will join in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One never loses a right, specially the natural right that always existed.   Natural rights are not given, nor they can be taken away. What others think doesnt matter.

People who think they can take away the right will pass laws that exponentially increases the "cost" of exercising that right.  In that sense, there is always a fight to exercise our rights. Without that fight, life is not interesting.  The fight is not limited to NJ or firearms or last 60 years, its been there throughout the History. People paid ultimate price in exercise and defense of their rights.

 

In the grand scheme of things, there will never be a time when people will leave you alone with your rights. Every generation will have to continue the fight the best way possible.

bolded........then why are none of us carrying? it is our right. yet none of us do. because we're not being granted permission. if we need permission, then it is not a right, but a privilege. that right was given away by our predecessors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Albert isn't at the 2K mark quite yet, since he's got mostly North Jersey Patriots involved.  What the initiative could really use is a stronger South jersey contingent.  Seems that South Jersey is ripe with FUDDS who might bitch on the computer, but will do little else.

 

Albert can speak for himself, as he's a member here.  He's most active on his fb group though:  NJ Second Amendment Rights (NJ2AR).

 

I for one will be proud to stand with him.  I'll be glad to be denied and become part of history with him.

 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bolded........then why are none of us carrying? it is our right. yet none of us do. because we're not being granted permission. if we need permission, then it is not a right, but a privilege. that right was given away by our predecessors.

 

Because we fear the repercussions of getting caught more than we fear the alternative.  We in general have been conditioned to follow the law.  Maybe you're not as old as me, but the indoctrination was at school, at home, and on TV.  For example:

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x54fyv_bunco-busters_creation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we fear the repercussions of getting caught more than we fear the alternative.  We in general have been conditioned to follow the law.  Maybe you're not as old as me, but the indoctrination was at school, at home, and on TV.  For example:

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x54fyv_bunco-busters_creation

i'm 52. but the law is an illegal law when you look at it. yet we all obey it. i know for dam sure i ain't gonna go meet bubba and his soap......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Albert isn't at the 2K mark quite yet, since he's got mostly North Jersey Patriots involved.  What the initiative could really use is a stronger South jersey contingent.  Seems that South Jersey is ripe with FUDDS who might bitch on the computer, but will do little else.

 

Albert can speak for himself, as he's a member here.  He's most active on his fb group though:  NJ Second Amendment Rights (NJ2AR).

 

I for one will be proud to stand with him.  I'll be glad to be denied and become part of history with him.

 

Dave

Count me in. No problems getting denied either.  I am not fan of farcebook, is there another place on regular interwebs I can get more info ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd apply if others were and there was a well thought out plan.

 

However, I'm gun shy.  I saw NJ2AS sort of kind of pretend to almost start such a project when it's membership practically rioted at a monthly meeting over the lack of attention to ccw.  I saw the breakup of the NJ2AS leadership and the forming of two other groups that seem to be floundering or maybe gone altogether.  ANJRPC is probably the most organized in NJ but they aren't going to tackle something this bold, they're still writing letters asking the police departments to please stop breaking the law.   I'm not sure there's a group in NJ I'd stand behind right now to organize this.

 

Since NJ awards 600 to 800 permits a year, I'd get involved if I was convinced that there were 200 others willing to do the same.   If a dozen did it, it's not enough to make a difference.   If somebody gets commitments contingent on that number being reached, I'm in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...